8
   

What is a nationalist?

 
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 02:20 pm
@Foofie,
What I don't understand is they say Bannon is anti-Semitic but isn't Breitbart Jewish ...and dont they have an office in Israel?
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 02:37 pm
@giujohn,
Are you looking for an intelligent discussion? Or are you looking for a fight?

I can answer your question, simply. Of course the underlying discussion that we should be having is about underlying racism in society where White people have been, and still are, privileged. The real question is how do we address this, and whether Trump and the people he is selected going to make this better or worse.

Of course Black People can be racist. Nation of Islam has been unquestionably racist both towards White people (which doesn't hurt very much but still counts as racist) and Jews (which for historical reasons does hurt).

Is there any chance that an intelligent discussion about the role of a Trump administration and politically mainstream groups such as the NAACP should have in the next 4 years?

Or is this just a mud slinging thread?
catbeasy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 05:55 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
Ive seen cases where they have not provided service to nonblacks.


If you wish credibility for this statement, you're going to have to show proof of this including full context..

However, this is a thing here which I find interesting. Are women sexist for banding together in organizations that fight for their rights?

The idea is that there are groups that have had their rights trampled on and so feel a need to band together to protect those rights or just get them. In the list of rights being trampled on whites are way way way down on the list.

As far as race goes, whites are the one's in the position of power. What is it to be in power? Well, what percentage of people own the most money, the most seats in congress, the most seats politically?

I think many whites get riled because they lack context. Their framework includes starting from 99.99% and going down to 80%. To them that is a lamentable loss of power and means their rights are being taken away. Kinda reminds me of our military..

The US spends more military money than the next top 13 nations. So, if we cut that down to, say the next 7 top nations, all of a sudden our military is floundering, has been gutted etc..

Context is king.

There is no doubt that some white people get discriminated against. I don't know what the answer is for them. Their discrimination is not historical, its not cohesive, its not chronic like it is for other groups.

But whites, statistically, certainly have more options than blacks and other minorities, precisely because they are a majority, have the money/power. And statistically, not sure that the problems they are experiencing are due to systemic racism. Many of their problems are the same as minorities. The gov't pretty much treats poor people as a whole, white or black, badly. But It doesn't help that there is a perception that most of the groups associated with helping whites out, it seems, are known racist groups. Is that true? Anyone got numbers on this?

0 Replies
 
perennialloner
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 09:04 pm
Call it whatever you want. There is and has always been a fundamental distinction between the two. Black Nationalism is a response to White oppression. White Nationalism is a response to black people fighting against White oppression.
giujohn
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2016 09:14 pm
@maxdancona,
The purpose of the thread is to illustrate the propensity of the MSM to make up buzz words with a negative connotation in an effort to broadly paint conservatives as racist. But if anyone attempts to apply the same criteria to a black person it is automatically a racist endeavor. It is showing how liberals curtail free speech and hypocritically demonstrate their intolerance of opposing views. It shows why someone like Trump with his over the top political incorrectness can pull off such a stunning upset.
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 06:33 am
@giujohn,
I suppose I partially agree with you John. The MSM (I will use your term for the general media) simplifies things in order to keep viewers fixed. After all, they are businesses looking for ratings. As part of this they do make generalizations.

I agree with your point that sometimes conservatives are broadly painted as racist to fit a narrative, even when the characterization isn't fair.

I agree that "liberals" are intolerant of opposing views (actually I think this is a human trait that all sides engage in).

I don't agree with your definition of the term "curtailing free speech". Calling someone a "racist" is free speech. It doesn't curtail free speech. I can accept a point that "liberal" ides can use political pressure of words like "racist" as a way to drown out conservative ideas. But, this is part of the battle of ideas.. and conservatives use similar words... i.e. "thug" or "socialist".

But I think you are missing the main point about Steve Bannon...
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 06:43 am
So, the alternative right is a self-described amalgam of Tyler Durdens and other PC-haters, a few people with really unpopular biological views that lend heavily toward racism in our culture etc.

That was a fabulous, informative article brought by maporsche. I read about half of it because I kept chasing the internal links. I don't want to run through it, so I'll finish it soon- with all the background links.

I do see, once again, that the overriding mentality of liberals relies too heavily on label fixing and name-calling. Lol, remember how crazed liberals were about the word liberal?? So they've tried to corrupt this "alt right" noise into a condemnation.

Anyway, still fact-finding.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 06:48 am
From the Guardian, my brackets.

Quote:
Most notoriously, he(Bannon,) is executive chairman of Breitbart News, an online linchpin of the so-called “alt-right” movement, associated with efforts to preserve “white identity”, defend “western values” and oppose multiculturalism. Its headlines have included Would You Rather Your Child had Feminism or Cancer?, Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy and There’s No Hiring Bias Against Women in Tech, They Just Suck at Interviews.

One headline described conservative commentator Bill Kristol as a “Republican spoiler, renegade Jew”. Another referred to Democratic congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who was shot in the head during a massacre five years ago, as “the gun control movement’s human shield”.

Activists accused Trump of bringing fringe hatred into the mainstream. The Southern Poverty Law Center, an anti-hate speech watchdog, wrote in an open letter: “Bannon presided over a news empire where he, according to former staffers, ‘aggressively pushed stories against immigrants, and supported linking minorities to terrorism and crime’.

It added: “Under Bannon, Breitbart published a call to ‘hoist [the Confederate flag] high and fly it with pride’ only two weeks after the Charleston massacre when the country was still reeling from the horrors of the murders. Under Bannon, Breitbart published an extremist anti-Muslim tract where the author wrote that ‘rape culture’ is ‘integral’ to Islam. Worse perhaps, Bannon personally insinuated that African Americans are ‘naturally aggressive and violent’.

Bannon’s personal conduct has also been under scrutiny. He was charged in 1996 with misdemeanor witness intimidation, and domestic violence with traumatic injury and battery. The charges were dropped after his wife, Mary Louise Piccard, did not show up at trial.

In a sworn court declaration following their divorce in 2007, Piccard said Bannon had objected to sending their twin daughters to an elite Los Angeles academy because he “didn’t want the girls going to school with Jews”. Bannon has denied saying this.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/14/steve-bannon-white-house-racism-fear
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 07:09 am
@izzythepush,
You should thank Izzy, GiuJohn. He is making your argument for you.

My God! The Guardian pumps out some lousy journalism.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 07:34 am
@maxdancona,
Does that mean you're disputing everything in the article, or just throwing mud because you're desperate for some attention?
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 08:25 am
@perennialloner,
A fundamental distinction by who?
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 08:35 am
@maxdancona,
Yes, I agree that the mainstream media is a business, however a business with a special distinction. They are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution and with that protection should come a higher standard to put the public Trust that that distinction implies, above business. But I'm not foolish enough to believe that this is just about higher ratings. It is about pushing a one-sided political agenda and an ideology. It is about trying to manipulate elections... Ironically while decrying what they believe to be Russia's interference. In as much as they do hold this special distinction and protection it is my belief and the belief of many millions of other Americans that they're reporting of the news, and I emphasize the word reporting, not making the news, should be placed above all other personal interests and should be fair and balanced at all times.
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 08:39 am
@maxdancona,
LOL... As I was reading it I was thinking the exact same thing but thanks for posting it so I didn't have to. It's guilt by innuendo.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 08:44 am
@giujohn,
Nods. An estranged ex-wife is hardly a good source of dispassionate character reference--still. I'd appreciate articles BY him or quotes BY him.
catbeasy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 09:40 am
@giujohn,
Quote:
But I'm not foolish enough to believe that this is just about higher ratings.

I think it is about higher ratings. That comes first, above all else. All medias are essentially "conservative" institutions. The MSM chooses what "side" they will engage in news with and off they go.

But they all do it within a conservative framework. That is to say they will not deviate from having money as their primary driving source and they will not deviate from the framework that they choose. In social intercourse this framework fundamentally accepts the "division" between republicans and democrats and the class distinctions that are a necessary part of the execution of this ideology. One just needs to look at the advertisements in any given MSM news source to understand this.

Most of your so called liberal media is an affront to much of liberal ideology. They will only go so far with what they write and woe betide those who try to push another story that steps out of their framework.

Siding is inevitable. Our language and our emotions are guarantee of this. That the MSM pursues a liberal agenda is side effect to money and their "liberalism" is only so defined because the rest of the spectrum is "left" out. Similar to how modern "democrats" are yesterdays republicans..we have redefined what it means to be democrat now.
maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 09:41 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

So they've tried to corrupt this "alt right" noise into a condemnation.


This sounds just like you trying to make 'neo-liberal' a thing to care about.
izzythepush
 
  6  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 10:20 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Nods. An estranged ex-wife is hardly a good source of dispassionate character reference--


But referring to Bill Kristol as a “Republican spoiler, renegade Jew” is fine and dandy.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 03:01 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

What I don't understand is they say Bannon is anti-Semitic but isn't Breitbart Jewish ...and dont they have an office in Israel?


I don't know either; however, I discount what I hear on the media these days, since one cannot tell truth from false propaganda.

There's an old Jewish joke, from a bygone era (young people don't know it most likely) based on a double entendre: Scratch a Gentile, and underneath there's an anti-Semite. So, if one thinks Jews think only a special nomenclature of Gentile is anti-Semitic, that just shows the desire to think Jews don't know the "score." The key, in my opinion, to lessen any level of anti-Semitism is to educate Gentiles to the good utility they have had from Jews in this country. Let's start with the A-bomb, and fast forward to the two types of polio vaccines. Did someone say where's a good dentist?
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 03:09 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Are you looking for an intelligent discussion? Or are you looking for a fight?

I can answer your question, simply. Of course the underlying discussion that we should be having is about underlying racism in society where White people have been, and still are, privileged. The real question is how do we address this, and whether Trump and the people he is selected going to make this better or worse.

Of course Black People can be racist. Nation of Islam has been unquestionably racist both towards White people (which doesn't hurt very much but still counts as racist) and Jews (which for historical reasons does hurt).

Is there any chance that an intelligent discussion about the role of a Trump administration and politically mainstream groups such as the NAACP should have in the next 4 years?

Or is this just a mud slinging thread?


You taught Physics, not biology. I say this because whiteness is an artificial construct. Just like being a Jew is, unless one wants to make some connection with dna and middle eastern lineage. So, similar to Indians', from India, apparent privilege, based on the number of college professors in their demographic, I have to discount whiteness as having any privilege, unless we are talking about social privilege, which can mean nothing if one has the good sense to follow one's bliss in an industry that values one's demographic. Like the old garment center moguls did not try to make a fortune in the steel industry. Get my drift?
0 Replies
 
catbeasy
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2016 03:12 pm
@Foofie,
Regarding this Jewish "thing", it is good to remember that in the strict sense, no one is "born" a Jew. They are given a label by social consensus as we all choose to define it. So, today Jews are folks who are born of other folks whom got labeled Jewish at some point and then at some point someone decided that the child would inherit the labels of the father (and mother?) Jewish. Or there could be conversion to Judaism.

Tomorrow that might not be the case.

This is as opposed to say that you are born with two arms or one arm today and that will be the case tomorrow*.

We are people first. I think anti-Semites forget this and forget the good dentists as well..

Edit: Looks like we were thinking on similar lines as this was a response to your post with "dentists in it". Not the one immediately above this one..

*holds his breath waiting for fresco to interject that number of limbs are social constructs as well. In that case, a rose by any other name, n'est pas?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/01/2021 at 11:33:44